Mr Man wrote:The falsehood is making a connection between "Satipatthana Sutta" and "leftist identitarian lenses".

The whole sutta pertains to frames of reference. If you can't fathom that, then how can I help you comprehend it?

This is what you said -

retrofuturist wrote:When you look at the world through leftist identitarian lenses, that is what you are bound to see. I am not in the slightest bit surprised... the Satipatthana Sutta says as much

This is false. It is not true. Satipatthana Sutta says nothing about "leftist identitarian lenses".

retrofuturist wrote:
So, I guess, in the end not only do you violate the Terms of Service by making unsubstantiated accusations against individuals, but instead of apologizing for your misdemeanours, you double down on your aspersions.

I am not making unsubstantiated accusations against individuals. I am just pointing out that what you said is false.

And how about this?

retrofuturist wrote:
I guess now that we live in an age where leftists deem anyone to the right of Michael Moore to be either a "white supremacist" or a "Nazi"

Should you be amenable to it, I'd suggest it's far more charitable to assume that people hold what views they hold out of a genuine belief that such models lead to better outcomes, rather than merely being rooted in mean-spiritedness.

Such charity of intention seems in short supply nowadays. The intolerance of divergent viewpoints is rather unfortunate, but unsurprising given the way that technology is used to facilitate ideological echo chambers.

The Satipatthana Sutta teaches in general terms and principles, and those general terms and principles are non-restrictive, such that they cover all potential lenses that were prevalent at the time and may exist in the future. Ergo, it doesn't need to say the specific words "leftist identitarian lenses" in order to be applicable.

MN10 wrote:How, monks, does a monk live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the six internal and the six external sense-bases?

Herein, monks, a monk knows the mind and mental objects and the fetter that arises dependent on both (the mind and mental objects); he knows how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen fetter comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned fetter comes to be.

Thus he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects internally, or he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects externally, or he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination factors in mental objects, or he lives contemplating dissolution factors in mental objects, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution factors in mental objects. Or his mindfulness is established with the thought, "Mental objects exist," to the extent necessary just for knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives detached, and clings to nothing in the world. Thus, monks, a monk lives contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the six internal and the six external sense-bases.

If you still honestly don't see the point being made, then I no longer expect any acknowledgement from you in relation to your deluded accusations. Apologies if my words have flummoxed you.

The Satipatthana Sutta teaches in general terms and principles, and those general terms and principles are non-restrictive, such that they cover all potential lenses that were prevalent at the time and may exist in the future. Ergo, it doesn't need to say the specific words "leftist identitarian lenses" in order to be applicable.

But you chose to refer to a specific "lens". If you had spoken in general terms and principles....

retrofuturist wrote:your deluded accusations.

Does this violate the Terms of Service by making unsubstantiated accusations?

And how about this? Is it factual?

retrofuturist wrote:
I guess now that we live in an age where leftists deem anyone to the right of Michael Moore to be either a "white supremacist" or a "Nazi"

Mr Man wrote:Does this violate the Terms of Service by making unsubstantiated accusations?

Erm... calling out unsubstantiated accusations is not an unsubstantiated accusation.

Mr Man wrote:But you chose to refer to a specific "lens". If you had spoken in general terms and principles....

Frankly, your incessant quarrelsomeness and pedantry is boring to me, and I have no interest in it. If you sincerely cannot cognize how to extrapolate and utilise principles and structures in order to handle specific cases which arise, then that failing falls on you and you alone. I am not accountable for your lack of comprehension.

MN 18 wrote:"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.

As I said I would do (time pending), here's a sutta that pertains to the righteousness of providing protection for those within one's jurisdiction...

AN 3.14 wrote:“It is the Dhamma, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for the people in his court. Again, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for his khattiya vassals, his army, brahmins and householders, the people of town and countryside, ascetics and brahmins, and the animals and birds. Having provided such righteous protection, shelter, and guard for all these beings, that wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, turns the wheel solely through the Dhamma, a wheel that cannot be turned back by any hostile human being.

As I said I would do (time pending), here's a sutta that pertains to the righteousness of providing protection for those within one's jurisdiction...

AN 3.14 wrote:“It is the Dhamma, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for the people in his court. Again, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for his khattiya vassals, his army, brahmins and householders, the people of town and countryside, ascetics and brahmins, and the animals and birds. Having provided such righteous protection, shelter, and guard for all these beings, that wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, turns the wheel solely through the Dhamma, a wheel that cannot be turned back by any hostile human being.

Mr Man wrote:Does this violate the Terms of Service by making unsubstantiated accusations?

Erm... calling out unsubstantiated accusations is not an unsubstantiated accusation.

Saying my accusations are deluded IS unsubstantiated.

And earlier you had said -

retrofuturist wrote:
So, I guess, in the end not only do you violate the Terms of Service by making unsubstantiated accusations against individuals,

Despite the fact that I gave direct quotes from you - it's all a bit upside down.

retrofuturist wrote:Frankly, your incessant quarrelsomeness and pedantry is boring to me, and I have no interest in it.

If you have no interest in accuracy of speech so be it.

retrofuturist wrote:
If you sincerely cannot cognize how to extrapolate and utilise principles and structures in order to handle specific cases which arise, then that failing falls on you and you alone. I am not accountable for your lack of comprehension.

Mr Man wrote:
I don't believe I said anything has been done to me. But just for the record I have received "warnings" (is discussions about moderation and admin decisions now allowed?)

Well, just for the record, the majority of the warnings were issued by someone who is no longer here.

Now allowed? You were always allowed to reach out to the staff to discussion moderation. Have you? If you have an issue either write to the staff or post something in the suggestion box. Seems to work for many.

Mr Man wrote:

SDC wrote:So what exactly can't be discussed?

Check out the terms of service. & by the way has H always been there?

Thanks for pointing me to the entire ToS...so what do you wish to discuss that can't be discussed?

Regarding H, it is fairly new. If you have questions take it to suggestion box or write to the staff.